FALSE PROPHETS AND THE DECEIVING SPIRIT

135

TMSJ 4/2 (Fall 1993) 135-63

FALSE PROPHETS AND THE DECEIVING SPIRIT

Richard L. MayhueVice-President and Dean

Professor of Pastoral Ministries

First Kings 22:19-23 occasions the herculean challenge of identifying"the spirit" in a way that best accounts for the reality of false prophecy in 1Kgs 22:6. From six suggested possibilities, a personified spirit of prophecy, ademon, and Satan are initially deemed the most reasonable identifications andthus merit further inquiry. Considering the philological, hermeneutical, andtheological factors of the three interpretations, Satan best fits "the spirit" in 1Kgs 22:21. Demonic activity, initiated and superintended by Satan, is themost probable and immediate dynamic responsible for the false prophecy in 1Kgs 22:6 and explained by 1 Kgs 22:19-23. Finally, God did not ordain thisevent; however, He did permit it.

*****

R. A. Torrey realistically recognized that one of the mostpuzzling passages in the Bible is 1 Kings 22 and its parallel account in2 Chronicles 18.1 Nearly everyone acknowledges that no conclusiveagreement regarding the meaning of "the spirit" in 1 Kgs 22:21 hassurfaced. The interpretation of this passage is tantalizing for studentsof Scripture.

Even scholars of the same tradition differ over solutions to thisenigma of how a holy God apparently collaborates with deceivingspirits. The central question is how to harmonize "the spirit" in 1 Kgs22:21 with the false prophecy of 1 Kgs 22:6. How can the immediatetext, the holiness of God, and the inerrancy of Scripture yield asatisfactory identification of "the spirit"?

The dilemma is how a holy and true God can associate Himselfwith the apparent instigation of lies among false prophets? A

1R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible (Chicago: Moody, n.d.) 73. See Ray Dillard, "TheChronicler's Jehoshaphat," TrinJ NS (1986):20, for a discussion of why the Chronicles'account is unique to Chronicles and also differs from 1 Kings 22.

136

proposed solution to this ultimate conundrum will address threesignificant questions.

1. Does 1 Kgs 22:1-40 represent sane factual history, or is itfictionalized drama with a spiritual message?

2. Is Micaiah's vision in 22:19-23 one of reality or merely symbolic?3. What reality or dynamic force best accounts for the false

prophecy of 22:6`human, angelic, or divine?Several secondary inquiries also provoke curiosity, even though

they are not the primary objective of this study. Who is Micaiah`possi-bly the prophet of 1 Kgs 20:35 ff.? Why did Ahab call for Micaiah andnot Elijah in 22:8? What caused Jehoshaphat to question Ahab'sprophets at 22:7? How did Ahab recognize Micaiah's initially barbedanswer in 22:15?

First Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 18, arguably, rank as theforemost example of prophetic conflict between kings and prophets,between God and false prophets, and between true and false prophets. Other memorable encounters from the OT include Balaam (Numbers22`24), Elijah's contest with the four hundred prophets of Baal (1 Kgs18:16-40), and Jeremiah's confrontation of Hananiah (Jeremiah 28). Inthe NT, Jesus (Matt 7:15; 24:11, 24), Peter (2 Peter 2), and John (1 John4:1-6) warned about prophetic conflict. Paul contended with Elymas(Acts 13:6-12) and Revelation records the last foray with "the falseprophet" (16:13; 19:20; 20:10). However, no passage in Scripture warnsas distinctly as 1 Kings 22 that (1) kings have more to fear from trueprophets than true prophets from kings and (2) false prophets havemore to fear from God than from kings.2

BIOGRAPHICAL LINEUP

Since the focal point of this investigation is to identify "thespirit" in 1 Kgs 22:21, a biographical and historical sketch isfoundational. Ahab, Jehoshaphat, and Micaiah are the chiefpersonages encountered in 1 Kings 22, where Ahab faces the decisionof whether to engage Ben-Hadad, king of Syria, in a militaryconfrontation.

2Patrick Miller, Jr., "The Prophetic Critique of Kings," Ex Auditu II (1986):82.

False Prophets and the Deceiving Spirit 137

AhabThe eighth king of Israel during the Divided Kingdom phase of

Jewish history, Ahab was the son of Omri. His reign began in thethirty-eighth year of Asa, king of Judah, and continued for twenty-twoyears (1 Kgs 16:29). Thiele fixed Ahab's rule from 874/73 to 853 B.C.3

Ahab's wife Jezebel worshipped the Tyrian god Melqart andintroduced, through Ahab, the cult of Baal-Melqart to Israel.4 Shevividly demonstrated her intolerance for anything related to the LORD by her attempted annihilation of the prophets of God (1 Kgs 18:13).

Because of Ahab's "religious" activities which abundantly andabsurdly violated the Mosaic standards, he had an ominousreputation. He was the ruler who did more to provoke the LORD, Godof Israel, than all the kings of Israel before him (1 Kgs 16:30-33).

Premature death is often the fate of those who forsake the LORD,so Ahab died from an arrow-wound (1 Kgs 22:34-37) and Jezebel fellbefore Jehu (2 Kgs 9:30-37). In fact, their whole pagan family perished,again at the hands of Jehu (cf. 2 Kgs 9:8 with 2 Kgs 10:1-28).

Obviously neither of the royal couple was a man or woman ofGod. Their religion was pagan and their activities ruthless (1 Kgs 18:4;19:2; 21:1-16). Athaliah, a daughter of Jezebel, even attempted to killJoash, who was the only legal heir to the Messianic promise throughDavid (2 Kgs 11:1-3).

JehoshaphatThe reign of Jehoshaphat obviously contrasts with that of Ahab.

The son of Asa, he reigned as the fourth king of Judah twenty-fiveyears (1 Kgs 15:24; 2 Chr 20:31).

This righteous ruler sought the God of his fathers, followedGod's commandments, and did not act as evil Israel did (2 Chr 17:4). He removed high places and the Asherah (2 Chr 17:6; 19:3), and didright in the sight of the LORD (2 Chr 20:32). The writer of Chroniclescharacterizes Jehoshaphat as a man who sought the LORD with all ofhis heart (2 Chr 22:9).

Yet Jehoshaphat's reign was not blameless. Due to militarypressures from Ben-Hadad of Syria and Shalmaneser III of Assyria,Jehoshaphat allied himself to Ahab by the marriage of his son Jehoram

3Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 66. 4William F. Albright, From The Stone Age To Christianity (2nd ed.; Baltimore: JohnsHopkins Press, 1957) 234-35.

138 The Master's Seminary Journal

to Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (2 Chr 18:1; 21:6). Thismarital bond paved the way for joint military operations (1 Kings 22and 2 Chronicles 18), which resulted in a rebuke from the LORD byJehu, the seer (2 Chr 19:2).

Jehoshaphat, a God-fearing ruler, allowed governmentalpressures to supersede his relationship with the Creator. The Jewishnation did the same in demanding a king like all the other nations (cp.1 Sam 8:19-20 with 1 Sam 12:12). In each case, God permitted sinfulactivities; but, as with Joseph (Gen 50:20), He used them to fulfill Hisultimate divine plan (Isa 46:10).

MicaiahThe Bible does not speak about Micaiah, son of Imlah, except in

1 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 18. Apparently Micaiah was not the onlytrue prophet of God in Israel (cf. 1 Kgs 17:1; 18:4), but he probably wasthe only one immediately available. The Scriptures are silent andprovide no basis for conjecture on why Ahab summoned Micaiah andnot Elijah. It seems that Micaiah returned to the custody of Amon andJoash from whom he had been released to appear before the royalcourt (1 Kgs 22:26; cf. "quickly" in 1 Kgs 22:9).

Ahab's reaction (1 Kgs 22:8) suggests that Micaiah could be theprophet who declared Ahab's death for not killing Ben-Hadad as Godcommanded (1 Kgs 20:35-43).5

From the narrative of 1 Kings 22 and from the fulfillment ofMicaiah's dream (cp. Deut 18:22 and 1 Kgs 22:28 with 1 Kgs 22:17 and 1Kgs 22:37), it is conclusive that Micaiah was truly a prophet of theLORD. None other than Ahab himself attests this (1 Kgs 22:8, 16) alongwith Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah (1 Kgs 22:24).

In the face of severe pressure (1 Kgs 22:13, 16), Micaiah wasfaithful to God. In spite of overwhelming unpopularity, he deliveredperfectly the divine message. Zedekiah rewarded him with ahumiliating facial blow (1 Kgs 22:24) and a return to prison, where thesoup de jour was water and the entree was bread (1 Kgs 22:27). Whether Micaiah obtained a release when Ahab's lifeless body cameback to Samaria (1 Kgs 22:37) is unknown. However, it is a certaintythat God did not leave Himself without a true witness in Israel!

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

5C. F. Keil, The Books of the Kings (trans. by James Martin, Biblical Commentary on theOld Testament, Vol. 3; 1970 rpt., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.) 274.


The military lineup in the ancient Near East during the 10th and9th centuries B.C. included Shishak of Egypt (945-924 B.C.),Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 B.C.) and Shalmaneser III (859-824 B.C.) ofAssyria, Ben-Hadad of Syria (890-841 B.C.), and the numerous kings of Israel and Judah.6 About 879 B.C., Asa, king of Judah, called uponBen-Hadad I of Syria to attack Baasha and the kingdom of Israel, whowere threatening Jerusalem (1 Kgs 15:16-22). In 855 B.C., Ben-Hadad Istruck Israel with a coalition of thirty-two kings (1 Kgs 20:1). As hewas getting himself drunk, the LORD delivered him into the hands ofAhab (1 Kgs 20:13-21).

Again in 854 B.C. Ben-Hadad I attacked Ahab at Amphek andwas soundly defeated (1 Kgs 20:26-30), as the LORD prevailed for Ahab(1 Kgs 20:28). The LORD indicated His displeasure at Ahab for notkilling Ben-Hadad I (1 Kgs 20:31-34) through a prophet of God (1 Kgs20:35-43).

In the meantime, however, Shalmaneser III of Assyria wasthreatening both Syria and Palestine from the east. Ahab and Ben-Hadad I formed a military alliance with neighboring kings to meetShalmaneser and stop his southern thrust. The combatants met atQarqar (modern Khirbet Qarqur) on the Orontes River in a decisivebattle unmentioned in the Bible but recorded on the Monolith Inscrip-tion of Shalmaneser.7 Though Shalmaneser was probably the victor,the encounter prevented further southern penetration.

After thwarting the Assyrian threat, Ahab and Ben-Hadad Irenewed their mutual hostilities because of Ahab's desire to retakeRamoth-Gilead (1 Kgs 22:1-3). It was this military prospect thatoccasioned Jehoshaphat's quest for the LORD's approval. Although theLORD caused Ahab's previous victories, the king demonstrated nointerest in the things of God (1 Kgs 22:3-5). The LORD delivered Israelfrom defeat by Ben-Hadad I not because of Ahab, but in spite of him.

This is the immediate situation of the interpretive problem ofthis essay. A godless pagan Ahab sought to involve the God-fearingJehoshaphat in a military operation to regain previously lost territory. Without seeking the LORD's leading or help, he plunged forward, littlerealizing that God had delivered him twice before, but would seal his

6See John C. Whitcomb Jr., Chart of Old Testament Kings and Prophets (Chicago: Moody, 1968). 7James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958) 188-92.


doom in this third engagement with Syrian forces.

INTERPRETIVE HISTORY

Aetiological ViewOf thirteen theologically liberal scholars consulted, over half

suggest this rationalistic view. They are not all fully agreed in theirexplanations, but are united in denying the literality of Scripture andthe supernaturalness of God.

Heaton described "the spirit" as the Hebrew way of accountingfor evil. He writes,

The sequel is worth pausing over, because it indicated how theexistence of false prophecy was accounted for. Obviously it posed aproblem. Had God lost control? Couldn't he stop it? . . . TheHebrews . . . preferred even to attribute calamity to Godànd sowith astounding daring they also explained evil things like falseprophecy as instruments used by God for his own purposes. . . .This naive explanation of evil may not satisfy us, but at least itenabled the Hebrew to maintain his faith in God's supremesovereignty, despite what we should call "intellectual difficulties."8

Burney9 and Eissfeldt10 identify "the spirit" as an "imaginary"and "legendary" character, respectively. Eissfeldt observes,

For the vision accounts of Balaam and Micaiah ben Imlah are likelyalso to have been imitations by the narrators from what they couldobserve in the prophets of their own time. Thus we cannot go

8Eric William Heaton, His Servants The Prophets (London: SCM, 1949) 25. Matheney(M. Pierce Matheney and Roy L. Honeycutt, Jr., 1-2 Kings [in The Broadman BibleCommentary, ed. by C. J. Allen; Nashville: Broadman, 1970] 223), Oesterly (W. O. E.Oesterley and T. H. Robinson, Hebrew Religion: Its Origin and Development [1944 rpt.;London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, n.d.] 222), Seigman (Edward F.Siegman, The False Prophets of the Old Testament [Washington: The Catholic University ofAmerica, 1939] 3-4), and Wellhausen (Julius Wellhausen, History of Israel [trans. by J. S.Black and A. Menzies; Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1885] 403) also take this basicposition. 9C. F. Burney, Notes On The Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (in The Library of BiblicalStudies, ed. by Harry M. Orlinsky; New York: KTAV, 1970) 255. 10Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. by P. R. Ackroyd; NewYork: Harper and Row, 1965) 148.


further than saying that we have only biographical narratives, someof them of a legendary character. . . .11

A third variation of the aetiological position is explained by Eichrodt12

as the development of the Hebrew concept of ur (ra, "spirit"). VonRad considers "the spirit" to be the "spirit of Yahweh," which is a well-defined concept in the progressive development of the OT propheticaloffice.13 They both see it as a developing concept with possibleCanaanite and Ugaritic backgrounds.

The common element in each proponent is the interpreter'srationalistic explanation of a vision given to the prophet Micaiah,supposedly from God. Their positions are not well supported bybiblical data.

Self-deluded ViewF. W. Farrar describes the subject passage as a "daringly

anthropomorphic apologue." He writes, "The prophets were self-deceived, but this would be expressed by saying that Jehovahdeceived them."14 Typical of many older expositors, Farrar treats thisenigmatic passage with little more than personal opinion expressed insomewhat elaborate and nebulous language.

More recently, this view has attracted wider support. Advocates include Dillard,15 Kaiser,16 and Vannoy17. Kaiser succinctly

11Ibid. 12Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (2 vols., trans. by J. A. Baker;Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967) 2:52. 13Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. by D. M. G. Stalker; New York: Harper and Row, 1962) 2:56-57. 14F. W. Farrar, The First Book of Kings (in The Expositor's Bible, ed. by W. R. Nicoll; NewYork: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1903) 492-93. Also see Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible (NewYork: Eaton and Mains, n.d.) 476; W. A. L. Elmslie The Book of Chronicles (in TheCambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, 2nd ed., A. F. Kirkpatrick, ed.; Cambridge: University Press, 1916) 243-44. 15Raymond B. Dillard, "2 Chronicles," in WBC (ed. by David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. A.Barker; Waco: Word, 1987) 15:142. 16Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983)256. Also idem, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988)120-21. 17J. Robert Vannoy, The NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985) 520.


notes, "These prophets spoke òut of their open minds.'"18 In thiswriter's analysis, the "self-deluded" approach does not do adequatejustice to the immediate text or to similar texts such as Job 1`2,Zechariah 3, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 12, because it does notallow for the reality of a heavenly encounter between God and "thespirit."

Demonic ViewA popular choice among conservatives, the demonic

identification, also has early patristic support from Augustine (354-430A.D.).19 Recent advocates of this position are mostly conservatives.20

Though each of these scholars may have convincing argumentsfor his position, they usually offer sparse support. The followingfeatures have been used to identify "the spirit" as demonic:

1. The identification of <y y (mal@k r#m, "messengers of evil") in

18Kaiser, Hard Sayings 120. 19Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms (in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol.VIII, ed. by A. Cleveland Cose and P. Schaff; New York: The Christian Literature Company,1888) 376. 20These include Chafer (L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology [Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press,1948] 4:294), Dickason (C. Fred Dickason, Angels, Elect and Evil [Chicago: Moody, 1975]180, who seems to identify "the spirit" with demons, but does not rule out Satan), Feinberg(Charles Lee Feinberg, personal correspondence dated October 11, 1973, a view neverformally published apparently), Gates(John T. Gates, "1 Kings," in The Wycliffe BibleCommentary [ed. by C. F. Pfeiffer and E. F. Harrison; Chicago: Moody, 1962] 339), Hoyt(Herman Hoyt, "Biblical Eschatology" [unpublished class notes; Winona Lake: GraceTheological Seminary, 1966] 158), Jacob (Edmond Jacob, Contemporary Old TestamentTheologians [ed. by R. B. Laurin; Valley Forge: Judson, 1970] 154), Kleinknecht (HermannKleinknecht, "pnema, pneymatikw," in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament[ed. by Gerhard Friedrich and trans. by Geoffery W. Bromily; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1968] 4:363), McClain (Alva J. McClain, John C. Whitcomb Jr., and Charles R. Smith,"Christian Theology`God and the World" (unpublished class notes; Winona Lake: GraceTheological Seminary, n.d.] 119-20), Merrill (Eugene H. Merrill, "1 and 2 Chronicles." in TheBible Knowledge Commentary [John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds.; Wheaton: Victor,1985] 633), Scott (Thomas Scott, The Holy Bible [Boston: Samuel T. Armstrong, andCrocker, and Brewster, 1831] 2:288), Strong (Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology [1970rpt.; Old Tappan: Revell, n..d] 457), and Wood (Leon J. Wood, personal correspondencedated October 3, 1973, a view never formally published apparently, but commented uponbriefly in The Holy Spirit In The Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976] 131).


Psalm 78:49 as demons.21

2. The identification of h ur (ra r#h, "evil spirit") in Judg 9:23; 1Sam 16:14-16; 18:10; 19:9 as demonic.22

3. The numerous NT references to demons as spirits. Examplesinclude Mark 1:23; Acts 8:7; 1 Tim 4:1; Rev 16:13-14.

4. The article with "spirit" in 1 Kgs 22:21 is used in its genericsense.23

5. The activity of "the spirit" in 1 Kgs 22:19-23 is representative ofdemonic activity.24

Against this view, however, there are some serious objections:1. Nowhere in Scripture do demons appear before the throne of

God.2. The generic explanation of the article with "spirit" is only one of

several grammatical possibilities.3. Since demons are not omnipresent, one demon could not affect

four hundred prophets simultaneously (1 Kgs 22:6, 22-23).It appears that the majority of confusion and misunderstanding

in this passage has resulted from a failure to identify the cause andeffect relationship between 1 Kgs 22:1-7 and 22:19-23. Whoever orwhatever "the spirit" in 22:21 is, it must also account for the reality ofthe prophets of Ahab prophesying falsely (cp. 1 Kgs 22:6 with 22:34-36). The demonic view can adequately explain the false prophecy, butis weak as an identification of "the spirit."

Personified ViewA majority of interpreters have adopted this, a position present-

ed by all traditions of interpreters except Patristic.25 Edersheim

21Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms 376. 22Note the article is lacking in each instance. 23John Gray, I and II Kings (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970) 452. Leon Wood reasons differently: "The article is only to designate a definite spirit . . . ratherthan merely spirits in general . . ." (personal correspondence). 24A. J. McClain, et al., "Christian Theology`God and the World" 119-20. Augustus H.Strong, Systematic Theology 457. 25Included are Alden (Robert L. Alden, personal correspondence dates Sept 28, 1973),Barry (Alfred Barry, 1 Kings [C. J. Ellicott, ed.; Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible;rpt., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.] 2:95), Brown (R. E. Brown et al., The Jerome BiblicalCommentary [Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968] 197), Burrows (W. O. Burrows, TheFirst Book of Kings [London: Rivingtons, 1899] 95), DeVries (Simon J. DeVries, Prophetagainst Prophet [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978] 45; also idem, 1 Kings [in WBC; Waco,


represents this view which has been variously explained:

It must not be understood as declaring what really took place in heaven,but as a vision in which the prophet saw before him, as in a parable, theexplanation and the higher Divine meaning of the scene that had justbeen enacted before the two kings. . . . It was a real external vision, Goddirected, which the prophet describes; not a vision of what reallyoccurred, the seduction of Ahab by his false prophets as the result ofDivine judgment, was thus presented in a parable, as it were, from theheavenly point of view.26

As to specific identification of "the spirit," Keil comments,

The spirit (ur [hra, "the spirit"]) which inspired these prophets as alying spirit is neither Satan, nor any evil spirit whatever, but, as thedefinite article and the whole of the context shows, the personified

TX: Word, 1985] 268 and "The Three Comparisons in 1 Kings XXII 4B and Its Parallel and 2Kings III 7B," VT 39/3 [1985]:283-306), Cook (F. C. Cook, ed., "1 SamuelÈsther," in TheBible Commentary [1970 rpt., Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.] 222), Edersheim (AlfredEdersheim, The History of Israel and Judah [New York: James Pott and Company, n.d.] 69),Eichrodt (Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament 2:52; Eichrodt terms this thedemonic aspect of the developing doctrine of the spirit), J. C. Gray (James C. Gray, TheBiblical Encyclopedia and Museum [Hardford: S. S. Scranton, 1900] 3:102), J. Gray (JohnGray, I and II Kings 452), Hammond (J. Hammond, 1 Kings [H. D. M. Spence and J. S.Excell, eds., The Pulpit Commentary; New York: Funk and Wagnalls, n.d.] 535), Honor (LeoL. Honor, Book of Kings 1 [New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1955]319), Keil (C. F. Keil, The Books of the Kings 276), Lumby (J. R. Lumby, The First Book of theKings [Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, J. J. S. Perowne, ed.; Cambridge: University Press, 1894] 233), Montgomery (J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman, A Criticaland Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings [ICC, C. A. Briggs, et al., eds.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1930] 339), Nichol (F. D. Nichol, The Seventh-Day Adventist BibleCommentary [Washington: Review and Herald, 1954] 840), Patterson and Austel (R. D.Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, "1 & 2 Kings," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary [FrankE. Gaebelein, gen. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988] 4:165), Rawlinson (GeorgeRawlinson, Kings`Books I and II [The Holy Bible, F. C. Cook, ed.; New York: Scribner,Armstrong and Co., 1875] 619), Torrey (R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible 73-75),Whitcomb (J. C. Whitcomb, Jr., Solomon to the Exile [Winona Lake: BMH, 1971] 46), andYoung (E. J. Young, My Servants the Prophets [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952] 136-42). 26Alfred Edersheim, The History of Israel and Judah 69.


spirit of prophecy. . . .27 [transliteration and translation added]

Unfortunately, this view creates more problems than it solves. It provides a possible interpretation, but it does not explain the causeof the false prophecy in 1 Kgs 22:6. Moreover, it leaves the interpreterwith the even larger problem of explaining what or who thepersonified spirit of prophecy is. Keil would respond,

But the false prophets as well as the true were governed by asupernatural spiritual principle, and, according to divine appoint-ment, were under this influence of the evil spirit in the service offalsehood, just as the true prophets were moved by the Holy Spiritin the service of the Lord.28

However, if the Holy Spirit is God's dynamic force for true prophecy,then what reality accounts for the numerous accounts of falseprophecy in the OT? The view does not explain this satisfactorily.

One possible explanation has been suggested by Whitcomb, "Inthe vision, the spirit who volunteered to entice Ahab's prophets mayhave been a personification of the spirit of false prophecy as inZechariah 13:2."29 But if this be true, what reality is the spirit personi-fying and how does this relate to the false prophecy in 1 Kgs 22:6? Who or what is the false spirit of prophecy? Both 1 Kgs 22:21 andZechariah 13:2 demand that the energizing force behind the falseprophecy be identified by something more than a biblical term; it mustidentify the actual cause! Commentators either briefly pass over 1 Kgs22:21 with a quick identification or labor unconvincingly to find atoken touch of causal meaning in the passage.30

Supporting arguments for this view include,1. Grammatically r ur (ra eqer) is in the construct state and must

be translated "spirit of deceit" rather than "deceiving spirit."2. ur (ra) is used in a similar sense elsewhere in Scripture.

Exod 28:3 spirit of wisdomNum 5:14 spirit of jealousyDeut 34:9 spirit of wisdomJudg 9:23 spirit of evil

27C. F. Keil, The Books of the Kings 276. 28Ibid., 277. 29J. C. Whitcomb Jr., Solomon To The Exile 46. 30E. J. Young, My Servants The Prophets 136-42.


Isa 11:2 spirit of wisdom and understandingspirit of counsel and strengthspirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord

Isa 19:14 spirit of distortionIsa 28:6 spirit of justiceIsa 29:10 spirit of deep sleepJer 51:1 spirit of a destroyerHos 4:12; 5:4 spirit of harlotryZech 12:10 spirit of graceZech 13:2 spirit of uncleanness

Heinisch explains, "The hagiographer simply wished to emphasize thefact that every event, whatever the circumstances, has been willed byGod and must be traced back to God as its final cause."31

By far the most serious objection to this view is its implicationsfor interpreting similar passages. If this is a parabolic personification,how than are Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-13; Zech 3:1-10 to be understood? The normal conservative interpretation of each is that they wereactual encounters in heaven. As a matter of fact, this was John'sexplanation of Isaiah 6 (cf. John 12:36-41.) He declares that Isaiahactually saw the glory of Christ on the throne.

Satanic ViewAlthough this view does not have the strongest numerical

support, it is the majority choice of the early scholars who wrote con-cerning this passage.32 In support of this position, the following proofs

31Paul Heinisch, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. by William Heidt; Collegeville,Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1955) 122. 32Advocates of identifying "the spirit" as Satan are Cassian (John Cassian, The Conferencesof John Cassian [E. C. S. Gibson, trans., in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, ed.by P. Schaff and Henry Ware; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprinted, 1955] 11:304),Chrysostom (John Chrysostom, Epistles of Paul To The Corinthians [T. W. Chambers, ed., inNicene Fathers, First Series, ed. by P. Schaff; New York: The Christian Literature Company,1888] 12:169), Davidson (A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament [S. D. F.Salmond; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1904) 302-3), Gill (John Gill, An Exposition`The OldTestament [London: W. H. Collinridge, 1853] 393, Heinisch (Paul Heinisch, Theology of theOld Testament 138), Kittel and Noth (R. Kittel and M. Noth, Liber Regum [Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1966] 554; see critical note on 1 Kings 22:21); JohnMacArthur, God, Satan, and Angels [Panorama City, CA: Word of Grace, 1987] 75), Oehler(G. F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament [trans. by G. F. Oehler, Theology of the OldTestament, trans. by G. E. Day; New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1883] 449), Origen (Origen,


have been suggested:1. The parallel situations of Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Zech 3:1-10; Rev

12:10, where Satan appeared before God in heaven, suggest "thespirit" in 1 Kgs 22:21 be identified as Satan. Merril Unger notes,"This is an extremely attractive thesis since Satan is King andhead over the demonic powers."33

2. The use of the article with "spirit" to indicate a particular, wellknown spirit suggests Satan.34

3. The title of "the father of lies" given to Satan by Christ in John8:44, characterizes "the spirit" of 1 Kgs 22:21.

4. Paul's description of Satan as a disguised angel of light in 2 Cor11:14 describes "the spirit" of 1 Kgs 22:21.

5. Satan's activity in Genesis 3 of deceiving Eve and in 1 Chr 21:1of deceiving David suggest an identification of Satan. Alsocompare the influence of Satan upon Ananias to lie to the HolySpirit in Acts 5:3.

6. The deceiving activity of Satan in Revelation parallels that of"the spirit" in 1 Kgs 22:21. Cf. Rev 12:9; 20:3, 8, 10.

7. Ephesians 6:12 suggests that Satan is a spirit being. This issupported by Satan's entry into Judas. Cf. Luke 22:3 and John13:27.

8. Second Thess 2:11-12 presents a clearly different but similarsituation and uses almost identical language to describe Godsending a deluding influence upon the world.The most formidable argument against this view is that Satan is

not omnipresent and could not possibly have entered the mouth of allfour hundred prophets (1 Kgs 22:6, 22-23). Additionally, it has beensuggested that r ur (ra eqer) (1 Kgs 22:22-23) is in the construct stateand should be translated "spirit of deceit" rather than "deceivingspirit."

Angelic View

Origen De Principiis [trans. by F. Crombie, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. by A. Robertsand J. Donaldson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951] 4:329), Payne (J. Barton Payne, Theologyof the Older Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962] 294; personal correspondence datedOctober 2, 1973 agrees as does "1 & 2 Chronicles" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary[Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988] 4:499), Wordsworth (CharlesWordsworth, The Holy Bible [London: Rivington's, 1868] 84). 33Merrill F. Unger, personal correspondence dated September 25, 1973. 34J. Barton Payne, Theology 294.


This view is an extreme possibility although it was notadvocated by any scholar consulted. Though not supporting this idea,F. C. Cook suggests it as a possibility.35 Because no indication is in theimmediate text or anywhere else in the Bible that good angels areinvolved in deceiving activities, this view cannot receive seriousconsideration.

Non-committal ViewSeveral commentators, both liberal and conservative,

conveniently chose to avoid dealing with the identity in question.36

PHILOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

TextThe OT Massoretic Text has no textual variations within or

between 1 Kgs 22:21 and 2 Chr 18:20. A comparison of 1 Kgs 22:21with 2 Chr 18:20 in the LXX reveals a significant variation, however. The 1 Kings passage presents "spirit" as an anarthrous noun while in 2Chronicles the noun is articulated. This is also at variance with theMassoretic Text.

The Aramaic Targum of Jonathon renders both verses 'iur(r@, "the spirit"). This original spelling indeed agrees with the MTbecause of its use of the postpositive article ' (@).37 The Latin Vulgateis noteworthy because the definite article is absent from both passages. Since Latin has no word for either the definite or indefinite article,38

the Vulgate witness is inconclusive.In view of the MT and Aramaic Targum evidence for the article,

35F. C. Cook 1 Samuel-Esther 222. 36These included Benson (Joseph Benson, The Holy Bible [New York: T. Carlton and J.Porter, n.d.] 114), Dentan (R. D. Dentan, The First and Second Books of the Kings [in TheLaymen's Bible Commentary, ed. by B. H. Kelly; Richmond: John Knox, 1964] 68-70),Josephus (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [VIII:15, trans. by W. Whiston;Philadelphia: John E. Potter, n.d.] 224-25), Myers (Jacob M. Myers, II Chronicles [in TheAnchor Bible, Wm. F. Albright and David N. Freedman, gen. eds.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965] 104-5), and Poole (Matthew Poole, Annotations Upon The Holy Bible[New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853] 713). 37Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1961)23. 38N. J. DeWitt, J. F. Gummere, and A. Horn, College Latin (Chicago: Scott, Foresman,1954) 12.


which is supported by the LXX reading in 2 Chronicles, the conclusionis that the article in 1 Kgs 22:21 is the correct rendering. Kittelconsidered the LXX reading of 1 Kings insignificant and did notinclude this variation in the critical apparatus of Biblia Hebraica.39

Unfortunately, no Dead Sea Scroll manuscript has 1 Kgs 22:21. However, there are fragments from 1 Kgs which include 1 Kgs 22:28-31. Examples of the Former Prophets have been located in severalQumrn caves. Milik observes, "They seem to be derived from thesame Hebrew tradition as is represented in the LXX.!"40 Brownlee41

and Baillet42 concur with this analysis.Several fragments of 1 Kings are included in Les `Petites Grottes'

De Qumrn. They are 1 Regum 3:12-14 (fragment 1), 1 Regum 12:28-31(fragments 2, 3, and 4), and 1 Regum 22:28-31 (fragment 5).43 Thesefragments are dated in the last half of the second century B.C. asverified by the antiquated orthography. In these five fragments, sixty-seven consonantal characters, all of which are in agreement with theMassoretic Text, occur. This in no way verifies that the MT is totallysubstantiated or validated by the DSS, but it does serve as an empiricaldemonstration of the MT's reliability after 1000 years of transmissionthrough hand-lettered copies.

If LXX readings are more often reliable in the Dead Sea Scrollfragments of the Former Prophets than anywhere else in the OT, howdoes this affect the above conclusion that the article in 1 Kgs 22:21 iscorrect in light of its absence in the LXX? In view of the strongsupporting evidence for the Massoretic reading, it appears that theLXX rendering could possibly be marred by a scribal error of omissionalthough there is no absolute explanation for this mistake from theevidence at hand. Therefore, the remainder of this investigationassumes the validity of the articulated reading.

Syntax

39R. Kittel and M. Noth, Liber Regum 554. 40J. T. Milik, Ten Years Discovery In The Wilderness of Judaea (trans. by J. Strugnell;Naperville, ILL.: Alex R. Allenson, 1959) 25. 41W. H. Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumrn Scrolls for the Bible (New York: Oxford,1964) 12. 42M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. deVaux, Les `Petites Grottes' De Qumrn (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962) 107. 43Ibid., 107-8.


The Article (ur [hra, "the spirit"])Because of the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, it can be

ascertained that the articulated noun hra was used by the Holy Spiritfor a specific reason. In Hebrew grammar the article is always omittedwhen a person or thing is represented as undetermined or unknown.44

Therefore, it is conversely true that the article is used almostexclusively when the person or thing is determinable.

Of the numerous uses of the article in Hebrew, threepossibilities are applicable to this problem.

1. The article is used to limit ideas of species to definiteindividuals or things.45

2. The article may be employed in a generic sense to indicate thetotality of the individuals in the genus so that the union of asingular noun with the article includes every individual underthe species.46 This same effect can be equally well accomplishedby the plural.

3. A peculiarity in Hebrew is the use of the article to designate asingle unknown which is to be later determined or identified.47

Because "the spirit" is not later identified, alternative 3 can bedismissed from consideration. Either option 1 or 2 is valid. The firstalternative seems to be the natural use in its simplest sense and ispreferred in light of further supporting evidence. The generic use (alt.2) is legitimate grammatically, but it is the more difficult use and is notnecessary to identify "the spirit.'

Construct State or Attributive Adjective? (r ur [ra eqer,"deceiving spirit"])

The expression ra eqer occurs in vv. 22 and 23. Those who arguefor the personified view, understanding "the spirit" to be the spirit ofprophecy, interpret this form as the construct state, which would bestbe translated "spirit of deceit." The satanic and demonic positionsdemand that eqer function as an attributive adjective and have the

44E. Kautzsch, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (2nd ed., ed. by A. E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon, 1910) 377. 45Ibid., 376, and A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax (3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,1901) 25. 46E. Kautzsch, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar 377. Also see Bruce K. Waltke and M.O'Connor, An Introduction To Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990)114. 47Ibid., 378.


meaning "deceiving spirit."The form ra is used as both absolute and construct, which

makes this determination difficult since the spelling is correct foreither.48 Obviously positive identification of the form is impossible,but the possibility that "the spirit" does not have to have a personifiedmeaning is evident. It is absolutely essential to the demonic or satanicview that the attributive understanding (i.e., construct state) islegitimate. Those who use the construct state to support a personifiedposition must recognize that the construct offers another attractivealternative.

Singular or Collective Use? (ra eqer)Almost any word may be used in the singular as a collective,

especially words that name classes of persons or things.49 The force ofthis observation is somewhat diminished in this particular instance bythe normal plural form of "spirit" which is /oiur (rt). In context,however, vv. 22 and 23 speak of the effect upon the four hundredprophets of Ahab for which "the spirit" of v. 21 was to be responsible. Since one spirit (regardless of the identification) cannot beomnipresent in 400 men simultaneously, a collective understanding ofra eqer is necessary.

Syntactically, it may be understood then that "the spirit" of v. 21was responsible for a multiple deceiving effect upon the prophets. Astheological considerations will show, the only alternative which can benaturally explained is that "the spirit" is none other than Satan.

Semantics

Spirit (ra)The Ugaritic rw, meaning "wind, spirit, or breath,"50 has four

basic meanings:51

48F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OldTestament (1972 rpt, Oxford: Clarendon, n.d.) 924. 49A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax 19. 50Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1947)323, and Stanislaw Segert, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (Berkeley: Universityof California, 1984) 201. 51David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (Cambridge: University Press, 1967)206-15; Hermann Kleinknecht, "pnema, pneymatikw," in Theological Dictionary of theNew Testament (ed. by Gerhard Friedrich, and trans. by Geoffery W. Bromily; Grand Rapids:


1. breath/wind2. a principle which gives life to the body3. seat of emotions, intellectual functions, and attitude of will4. supernatural influences acting upon men.

As expected, alternative 4 is the use in 1 Kgs 22:21-23.Those who espouse the Personified View have identified "the

spirit" with "the spirit of prophecy" as if this spirit of prophecy was awell-known concept. On the contrary, the phrase "spirit of prophecy"appears only once in the Bible. In Rev 19:10 the testimony of Jesus isequated with "the spirit of prophecy." This use associated with Christcould in no sense account for "the spirit" in 1 Kgs 22:21, much less forthe false prophecy in 22:6.

The concept of a "spirit of prophecy" is surely derived from thefamiliar OT phrase, "the Spirit of the LORD came upon him and heprophesied. . . ." This is strengthened by 2 Pet 1:21 which directlytestifies that the Holy Spirit is God's agent for the revelation of trueprophecy. However, this does not account for a "spirit of false prophe-cy."

Ra in the OT and pnema (pneuma, "spirit") in the NT are used inreference to demons. Such OT passages as 1 Sam 16:23; 18:10; 19:9possibly use "evil spirit" in reference to demonic activity. Far moreconclusive is the NT use, especially in the gospels. Examples includeMark 1:23; Acts 8:7; 1 Tim 4:1; Rev 16:13-14.

Neither Testament calls Satan a spirit, but this does not makethe identification impossible. Because Satan entered into Judas (cf.Luke 22:3; John 13:27), he must be a spirit being. Further, Paul'sdescription of a Christian's battle against the forces of evil equatesSatan (Eph 6:11) with a force not of flesh and blood but with "spiritual"(pneymatikw [pneumatikos]) forces of evil (Ephesians 6:12).

Semantically, a good case can be made for either a Satanic ordemonic identification of ra in 1 Kgs 22, but a "spirit of prophecy"responsible for false prophecy finds no support.

Entice (h [pth]) and Deceive (ra eqer)Pth, which can be translated "deceive, entice, persuade, seduce,

or prevail upon," has the basic idea of overcoming or prevailing.52

Eerdmans, 1968) 4:359-67; Paul Younger, "A New Start Towards A Doctrine of the Spirit,"in CJT 13:2 (1967):123-33. 52F. Brown et al., A Hebrew and English Lexicon 834; Ludwig Koehler and WalterBaumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958), 786; also see


This victorious result is obtainable either legitimately or dishonestly. In Jer 20:7-9; Ezek 14:9, this activity is credited to God. In Exod 22:16,it has the sense of a man seducing a virgin sexually, and in Deut 11:16,it involves deception which results in turning away from truth. Onlycontext can determine the legitimacy of the action whereby oneprevails over another.

+Seqer involves deception by words through falsehoods andlies.53 It speaks in Jer 14:14; 23:25-26; 29:21 of prophets prophesyingfalsely, in Ps 101:7 of a lie, and in Prov 17:4 of a liar.

The interchange of these two terms in 1 Kgs 22:23 is interestingin that it highlights the difference between two almost synonymouswords. In 22:20 God asks for a volunteer to entice (pth), and in 22:21"the spirit" volunteers to entice or, better yet, prevail. When God asks"the spirit" in 22:22 what activity would be used, "the spirit" replies hewould be a deceiving spirit (ra eqer). In 22:22-23 God approved of thedeceiving activity (eqer) which resulted in overcoming (pth) Ahab inthe sense that God allowed it to occur, not that He planned orapproved of the dishonest means to a legitimate end.

Jer 20:7-9 and Ezek 14:9 prove that God prevails andovercomes. The direct statement in Tit 1:2 and the fact that God isnever associated with the word eqer in the OT confirms that He neverlies. However, overcoming by falsehoods is an activity characteristicof Satan and his demonic agents.

HERMENEUTICAL CONSIDERATIONS54

Figurative Language In Prophecy

Symbolic SpeechMore than one interpreter has erred by failing to understand

the purpose of symbols used prophetically. A basic maxim whichprovides guidance and stability is, "Prophecy arises out of a historical

R. Laird Harris et. al., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1980)2:742-43. 53Brown et al., Lexicon 1010, 1055. 54Two recent volumes can be consulted for key aspects of the hermeneutical process. SeeElliot E. Johnson, "Hermeneutical Considerations of the Goal of Interpretation," in ExpositoryHermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) 31-53. Also William W.Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction To Biblical Interpretation(Dallas: Word, 1993) 87-116, discuss presuppositions and preunderstanding.


situation."55 This leads logically to a normal interpretation ofprophecy, recognizing the legitimate use of speech figures. Symbols inprophetic passages represent the reality of a literal person or objectabout which the author writes.

Mickelsen suggests three characteristics for symbols:56

1. The symbol is itself a literal object.2. The symbol is used to convey some lesson or truth.3. The connection between the literal object and the truth it

teaches becomes clearer in light of the intention of the one whoused the symbolOnce a figure has definitely been pinpointed, it is then the

interpreter's responsibility to seek diligently the literal idea the authorintended. For example, four beasts in Dan 7:3-7 are used symbolically,but the interpreter finds help at 7:17 where Daniel explains that thesefour beasts are four literal kingdoms. John describes Jesus in Rev 1:12-16 with symbols and then furnishes the literal meaning of several ofthese symbols in v. 20.

What symbols did Micaiah see in his vision of 1 Kgs 22:19-23,and what are their interpretations? First, it must be recognized thatthis vision is symbolic in terms of self-interpretinganthropomorphisms. First, the expressions "the LORD sitting on Histhrone" and "all the host of heaven standing by Him" areanthropomorphically communicating the setting for Micaiah's vision. Instead of requiring a separate interpretation such as in Daniel orRevelation, these phrases are self-explanatory. Second, although thesurroundings have an anthropomorphic description, the mainpersonages are not also necessarily symbolic.

In the demonic view, "the spirit" is symbolic of demonic agents,and their appearance before the LORD symbolically represents God'spermissive will with respect to demonic activity. "The spirit" thensymbolically pictures that real dynamic or energizing power whichcaused the prophets to prophesy falsely in 1 Kgs 22:6. Inherent in thisunderstanding also is the generic use of the article as discussed above. This explanation, however, ignores Satan's reign over demons andcreates a bigger problem`why is Satan bypassed in this process?

While this possible interpretation is legitimate, it does require aunique happening never repeated before or after in Scripture. It ismore natural to recognize the anthropomorphic background of the

55A. J. McClain, The Greatness of The Kingdom (Chicago: Moody Press, 1959) 135. 56A. B. Mickelsen, Interpreting The Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963) 265-66.


vision, but to interpret "the LORD" and "the spirit" literally. With thisapproach, "the spirit" seems certain to correspond with Satan's otherliteral appearances before God in Job 1; 2; Zech 3:1; Rev 12:10.

ParablesThose interpreters who advocate the Personified View identify

"the spirit" as the personified spirit of false prophecy in a parabolicvision that approximates the setting of 1 Kgs 22:3-6. This connectionbetween heaven and earth must be made to introduce the parable intothe context. Does the vision in 1 Kgs 22:19-23 qualify as parabolic,though?

According to all definitions of parables, 1 Kgs 22:19-23 canlegitimately be termed a parable. It is like other OT parables, e.g., 2Sam 12:1-4. Yet this is the only feature that qualifies the PersonifiedView as a legitimate possibility hermeneutically.

The next issue is whether the parabolic explanation of "thespirit" accounts for the reality of false prophecy in 1 Kgs 22:6. Thoseholding the Personified View would answer that it is "the spirit of falseprophecy." But the question arises, "Who or what is the spirit of falseprophecy?" It is at this point that the parabolic interpretation and itsattendant identification falters.

The most defensible position is that 1 Kgs 22:19-22 has not beenplaced alongside 1 Kgs 22:6 for comparison as the parabolic under-standing demands, but rather is a causal explanation for the actualfalse prophecy in 22:6. The more natural explanation is to understandMicaiah's vision to include a real encounter between God and Satan. Satan then performed the deception through his demonic assistantsaccording to God's permissive will. J. Barton Payne concurs:

I would hesitate to involve the hermeneutic of symbolic interpreta-tion without contextual substantiation, though it is true, thestatement about the "spirit" occurs in a vision (yet most of us wouldargue for literalism even in such a case: cf. hell in the parable of therich man and Lazarus, or the millennium in the visions ofRevelation). A connection in time and place with Job would favorSatanic understanding. . . .57

Biblical VisionsA vision involves a supernatural presentation of certain events

before the mind of the prophet that can be represented symbolically

57J. Barton Payne, personal correspondence dated October 2, 1973.


(Dan 4:10-17) or actually (Ezek 8:5-18). Furthermore, because someobjects in a vision can be symbolic, it is not necessary that all theobjects be symbolic (Rev 4:2`5:14). A good rule of thumb is not tointerpret symbolically when the object can be real, especially whenthere are no theological objections to do so (Ezekiel 40`48; Isa 65:25).

Visions can be predictive, such as that given to Micaiah in 1 Kgs22:17 and 1 Kgs 22:19-23, or didactic, as when Micaiah communicatedhis vision to Ahab and Jehoshaphat after the fact. The subject passageaffords a very rare situation because both the predictive and didacticaspects, along with the fulfillment, are present within the samecontext. The vision had originally been given to Micaiah by God aspredictive; it was fulfilled in 1 Kgs 22:6; and it was related in itsdidactic sense in 22:19-23.

Why was the vision given to Micaiah? Obviously, the primarypurpose was didactic, for the vision was not revealed by Micaiah untilafter the prophecy was fulfilled. What then does the vision teach? Two elements seem prominent. First, the four hundred prophets ofAhab had indeed prophesied falsely. Second, "the spirit" was thesource from which the false prophecy had originated.

"The spirit," however identified, must account for the prophecyin 1 Kgs 22:6 which Jehoshaphat correctly evaluated as false. Interpreting "the spirit" as a personification of the spirit of prophecydoes not provide a real answer as to the cause of false prophecy. TheHoly Spirit is the source of God-breathed prophecy, but who or whatis responsible for false prophecy?

A response might be that the prophets were just lying andreally did not know the answer to Ahab's question. However, itwould not be to the prophets' benefit to prophesy falsely, knowingthat there was good reason to believe that the prophecy might fail. Itwas this same basic situation that the Chaldeans faced whenNebuchadnezzer challenged them to tell him his dream (Dan 2:1-11). Even in the face of a death sentence (Dan 2:12-13), they refused tospeak falsely.

What caused Ahab's prophets to prophesy falsely? It certainlywas not the Holy Spirit of God. Therefore, another source must beidentified, one that would make the prophets believe their prophecywas indeed true. Biblically, that leaves two choices: Satan or hisdemonic assistants. This explanation fully satisfies the inquiry into thereal source of false prophecy.

Additional support for a primarily literal as opposed tosymbolic understanding of Micaiah's vision is added by three biblical


visions whose settings approximate 1 Kgs 22:19. The prophet Isaiahthrough a vision viewed the LORD with His heavenly court. In Isaiah 6,the description recalls Micaiah's account of the celestial encounter in 1Kgs 22:19. The context of Isaiah 6 suggests an essentially literalunderstanding as does John's God-inspired, NT commentary. John12:40 quotes from Isa 6:10 and interprets that Isaiah actually saw theglory of the Lord Jesus Christ (739 B.C.).

Joshua the high priest, the angel of the LORD, and Satan were allparticipants in the vision recorded in Zechariah 3. Not only the settingbut also the appearance of Satan before the LORD is instructive as aparallel to 1 Kgs 22:19-23. Finally, the setting in Rev 4:2 approximatesthat of Micaiah's vision also, as do Ezek 1:26-28; Dan 7:9-10; Acts 7:55-56.

These passages by themselves are not sufficient to demand aliteral interpretation of "the spirit" as Satan. However, taken together,they are other positive indicators which compel serious considerationfor a Satanic identification of "the spirit."

THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Satan

Satan In The OTJob 1`2 depicts Satan's appearing before God at the assembly of

the sons of God. During this encounter, God and Satan discussed thefuture of an earthly inhabitant, i.e. Job. Understanding that the sceneis anthropomorphically described, one is hard pressed to understand itas anything but a literal interpretation. Job 1:13-22; 2:7 record the realevents resulting from this heavenly conference.

The similarities between these Job passages and 1 Kings 22 arestriking in character and setting. Delitzsch, commenting on Job 1,opposes Keil's understanding of 1 Kings 22. He observes, "Finally, itagrees with 1 Kings xxii.19-22, Zech. iii., on the one hand and Apoc.xii. on the other that Satan here appears still among the good spirits. . .."58 Zckler similarly states, "In 1 Kings xxii.19, where a scene greatlyresembling the present is discovered, the tempter bears no name, buthis individuality is distinct, for he is characterized as the spirit."59

58F. Delitzsch, Job (in Commentary On The Old Testament; trans. by Francis Boltin; rpt.,Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.) 4:53. 59Otto Zckler, The Book of Job (in Lange's Commentary On The Holy Scriptures, trans. by


In Zech 3:1 Satan personally appeared before the LORD in thepresence of others. This seems to reflect the norm for Satan's appear-ances in the OT.

That Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to numberIsrael is the report of 1 Chr 21:1. Interestingly, the parallel passage in 2Sam 24:1 suggests that it was the LORD who caused David to conductthe census. John Davis explains,

The Chronicles account and the Samuel account merely reflect twoaspects of the same incident. Satan was the immediate cause ofDavid's action, but, theologically speaking, God was the ultimatecause in that He did not prevent the incident from occurring.60

The 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 passages not only providean almost identical parallel for identifying "the spirit" as Satan, but alsomirror the causal factors in 1 Kgs 22:22-23. In v. 22 "the spirit" is theprevailer, and in 22:23 Micaiah attributes the false-prophecy phenome-non to the LORD.61 By His permissive will, God allowed Satan todeceive the four hundred prophets of Ahab.

Illustrative of Satan's deceiving activities is his encounter withEve in the Garden of Eden. The serpent in Gen 3:1 is certainly Satan(compare 1 Tim 2:14; Rev 12:9; 20:2). When man began to inhabit thisearth, Satan was the chief deceiver. His character in Genesis 3 vividlyrecalls "the spirit" in 1 Kings 22.

These appearances of Satan in the OT and their close resem-blance to 1 Kings 22 in action and character are strong reasons toidentify "the spirit" as Satan. The personified spirit of prophecy has no

L. J. Evans; 1971 rpt., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.) 4:294. 60J. J. Davis, The Birth of A Kingdom (Winona Lake: BMH, 1970) 164; also see RichardMayhue, Unmasking Satan (Wheaton: Victor, 1988) 138-39. 61James L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971) 83, notes, "Thedivine responsibility for false prophecy is nowhere expressed more unequivocally than in thestory of Micaiah ben Imlah (I Kings 22:1-40)." See also J. J. M. Roberts, "Does God Lie? Divine Deceit As A Theological Problem in Israelite Prophetic Literature," in CongressVolume: Jerusalem 1986 (ed. by J. A. Emerton; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988) 211-20. Althoughthis subject deserves at least an article-length discussion, let it suffice for now to say that whileGod is ultimately the first cause of all, He is not the morally responsible, immediate agent ofsin such as false prophecy (Job 2:10; Isa 45:7; Lam 3:38). Thus, it is asserted that the eventsof 1 Kings 22 were not caused by God's decreed will, but rather allowed by His permissivewill, for which there is then human and angelic accountability to God in judgment.


biblical support in the realm of deceit and false prophecy, and thus isunconvincing. The possibility of "the spirit" representing demonscollectively is recognized, but demons are never known biblically tohave appeared before God. OT theology strongly supports the Satanicidentification.

Satan in the NTSatan is not directly referred to as "a spirit" in either Testament

unless "the spirit" of 1 Kings 22 is Satan. This does not mean, however,that Satan is not a spirit. The Bible has indirect indications that Satan isa spirit. In 2 Cor 11:14, Satan is called an angel of light. Angels, ofcourse, are spirits (Heb 1:14; cf. Ps 104:4). Satan must be spirit bynature, for he entered into Judas (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). Further, Pauldiscusses how to combat Satan in Eph 6:10-20. The opponent isidentified in v. 11 and the nature of Satan is discussed in 6:12. Thestruggle is not against flesh and blood but against "spiritual" (pneyma-tikw [pneumatikos]) forces of wickedness. The nature of Satan as spiritin being harmonizes with a Satanic identification of "the spirit" in 1Kings 22.

The apostle John characterizes Satan as a being in whom thereis no truth, who is a liar, and in fact, is the father of lies (John 8:44). Itwas "the spirit" in 1 Kgs 22:22 who suggested deceit as the means toprevail over Ahab. Satan is the most likely identification.

The strongest objection to the Satanic identification is that Satanis not omnipresent and could not have indwelt all four hundredprophets simultaneously; so he could not be "the spirit." It is correctthat Satan is not omnipresent, but this does not negate hisidentification as "the spirit." Satan can be in only one place at anygiven time because he is not the omnipresent God.62 However, theeffect upon many prophets can be explained by Satan's relationshipwith demons.

Matt 12:24 identifies Satan as the ruler of demons. Matt 25:41and Rev 12:9 speak of Satan and his angels. Demons are fallenangels.63 It is this precise relationship`that of Satan's ruling over

62Compare Job 1:7 and 1 Pet 5:8. Also see Rev 20:2-3 where Satan is confined to the abyssfor one-thousand years. 63C. R. Smith, "The New Testament Doctrine of Demons," Grace Journal 10/2 (Spring1969):32-35. Dr. Smith has written a well-documented case for demons being identified asfallen angels. Also see Ps 78:49 where demons are referred to as a band of destroying ("evil,"NASB margin) angels.


demons`which explains Satan's worldwide ministry of evil andexplains how one spirit who is not omnipresent could affect manyprophets simultaneously.64 One of the many functions of demons is todisseminate false information.65 Jas 3:14-15 suggests that being againstthe truth is from a demonic source. It is perfectly natural that demonsassisted Satan in light of his ruling relationship over them.

Acts 10:38 illustrates this inseparable relationship betweenSatan and demons. Peter, speaking to Cornelius, relates how Christwent about doing good and healing all whom Satan had oppressed. Numerous NT cases of people whom Christ healed, involved demonpossession.66 Here, Peter apparently speaks of Satan (the ultimatecause) who ruled and directed the demons (the immediate cause).

The height of attempted Satanic deception is in Matt 4:1-11. Satan attempted to deceive God in human flesh. The Lord Jesus Christthwarted this subtle effort only because He is God. The deceivingactivities of Satan in Revelation are frequent and worldwide in scope(Rev 12:9; 20:3, 8, 10). If Satan attempted to deceive Christ, he musthave found it easy to deceive Ahab's four hundred.

Satan is called the father of lies in John 8:44. Ananias andSapphira knew personally of this Satanic influence as Peter detected(Acts 5:1-11).

Rev 12:10 states that Satan accuses the brethren in the presenceof God day and night. The fact that Satan accuses is not significant foridentifying "the spirit," but the place of the accusations is. Satan standsbefore the presence of God, a characteristic that fits 1 Kgs 22:19-23.

Paul indicates Satan's relationship with false prophets in 2 Cor11:13-15 where he notes that they disguise themselves as false apostlesjust as Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. False prophets areactually servants of Satan, so it is not surprising to see a direct relation-ship in 1 Kings 22 between false prophets and Satan.

Second Thess 2:9-12 in its similarity to 2 Samuel 24 and 1Chronicles 21, parallels 1 Kings 22 in emphasis. Satan is at workthrough the lawless one (2:9-10), causing God to "send upon them" adeluding influence so that they may believe what is false (2:11).67 The

64M. F. Unger, personal correspondence dated September 25, 1973. Dr. Unger writes thatur is "probably a reference to , since the ur has the article. This is an extremelyattractive thesis since Satan is King and Head over the demonic powers." 65M. F. Unger, Biblical Demonology 199. 66See Matt 4:24; 9:32; 12:22; 15:21-28. 67Robert L. Thomas, "1, 2 Thessalonians," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Frank E.


close parallel between these three passages is perhaps the mostconvincing argument for the Satanic identification of "the spirit" in 1Kgs 22:21.

CONCLUSIONS

This essay has examined 1 Kgs 22:21 to identify "the spirit"which caused the false prophecy in 1 Kgs 22:6. The disciplines ofphilology, hermeneutics, and theology have been used as evaluativetools.

Six possible views`the aetiological, self-deluded, angelic,personified spirit of prophecy, demonic, and Satanicpositions`received initial attention. The aetiological view wasinadequate because of rationalistic presuppositions concerning theScriptures and God. Replacement of biblical reasoning by subjectiveopinion was the basis for ruling out the self-deluded view. The angelicview failed because of the absence of biblical indications that goodangels practice deceiving activities. This left the personified, demonic,and Satanic identifications as reasonable possibilities.

First came an investigation of philological matters. Textuallythe articulated reading of "spirit" was substantiated and foundsyntactically to support any one of the three reasonable alternatives. Next, r ur (ra eqer) proved to be either "the spirit of deception" or"deceiving spirit," allowing for the correctness of any of the threeviews. Semantically, the use of ur (ra) supported only the demonic orSatanic view as did the usage of h (pth) and r (eqer).

Second, a hermeneutical investigation of the symbolic speech ofthe passage demonstrated that it was possible to understand Micaiah'svision literally as supporting the Satanic view, symbolicallysupporting the demonic view, or parabolically as supporting thepersonified spirit of prophecy view. However, in light of the literalunderstanding of Satan's appearances before God in Job 1 and 2,Zechariah 3, and Revelation 12, the Satanic view emerged as the mostnatural and the most likely.

The study of biblical visions reduced the possible causes of falseprophecy in 1 Kgs 22:6 by one. The demonic and Satanic positionsremained possible although the Satanic understanding was favoredbecause of similar literal interpretations of heavenly visions in Isaiah 6,Ezekiel 1, Daniel 7, Zechariah 3, Acts 7, and Revelation 4. Hermeneuti-

Gaebelein, gen. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978) 11:327-28.


cally, the Satanic view was most probable in both Testaments, but wasnot conclusive.

Third, the theological implications of OT and NT revelationconcerning Satan, which include his activities and character, bestdescribe "the spirit." Finally, the answer to the objection to a Satanicidentificationì.e., that Satan is omnipresent and could not affect allfour hundred prophets simultaneously`demonstrated Satan's role asruler over demons. This relationship and the known activities of Satantheologically provided the most consistent explanation for identifying"the spirit" as Satan and demons as Satan's instrument in the mouths ofAhab's false prophets.

These philological, hermeneutical, and theological factors leadto the conclusion that "the spirit" in 1 Kgs 22:21 was in fact Satan andthat demonic activity, initiated and superintended by Satan, providedthe dynamic force responsible for the false prophecy in 1 Kgs 22:6.

FALSE PROPHETS AND THE DECEIVING SPIRIT

Documents